Main menu

Tag Archives: Obama McCarthyism

I wrote the “Case for Obama’s Election” for The Daily News, (January 27, 2008). I’ve felt sometimes rewarded by Obama’s actions and sometimes disappointed, but today I feel betrayed.

I feel betrayed by his tactics concerning the Iran Nuclear agreement. Although I don’t like the agreement, and wouldn’t have supported it, I accept that reasonable people can disagree and disagree strongly on the substance.

However, this administration and too many of my fellow liberals of the so-called “liberal media” transgress a line of decency by impugning the motives of those who oppose this, in my view, bad deal. To say that, “those who oppose the agreement are for war” is both a lie and libel. Sen. Chuck Schumer coming out against the agreement, after conscientious consideration, didn’t deserve to be mischaracterized by The Huffington Post headline as “War Push: Chuck Schumer backs war footing.”

There are articles linking Schumer with super hawk John Bolton, who does in fact want to go to war. President Obama says clearly that there are no options other than his deal or war, thereby lumping all opposition together with a classic smear. When Liberals go McCarthyite it’s just as ugly as when Conservatives do.

When the President says, “Show me a better plan,” it’s a disingenuous invitation. There’s no better plan now because we already gave nearly everything away and then sent it to the UN before submitting it to our Congress, as he’d promised.

The sanctions are gone, and nations are lining up to buy Iranian oil and sell them arms. Sanctions can’t be snapped back. Other nations won’t stop trading and even the so-called “snap back” provision grandfathers in any contracts made while the sanctions aren’t in force.

Obama’s attack on the Republican Caucus (that I’m usually happy to join in attacking) uses the classic time-tested and dishonorable tactic of implying that the opposition is disloyal and even treasonous. To say that “The Republican caucus is making common cause with the Iranian hardliners who shout Death to America and Death to Israel” because they’re both against the deal is reprehensible.

It’s a reminder of the 50s when anyone for civil rights was a pinko because the USSR talked (but didn’t practice) a pro-civil rights position. It’s a reminder of the 60s when to be antiwar was said to “give aid and comfort to the enemy.”

All of this is another troubling instance of personalizing politics instead of dealing with issues. This administration seems to be at war, not with the Mullahs but with Netanyahu. Given all of our bad history with regime change (Mossadegh in Iran, Diem in Vietnam, Hussein in Iraq, Gaddafi in Libya) you’d think we’d be humble in trying to get rid of leaders–especially the elected leader of our ally, but you’d be wrong. We actively worked to get rid of Netanyahu.

Some apparently still believe that if Netanyahu went, we’d get a kinder and gentler Israeli leader. This is wrong on so many levels: Factual, political and ethical to name a few.

While American Jews might be divided, Israeli Jews are pretty united. Replace Netanyahu with whom? Maybe arch conservative Lieberman. How about opposition leader Herzog? No. He too is against the Iran deal.

We bludgeoned the Saudis, with promises of more arms, into pretending to accept the wisdom of the deal. But they don’t. Not being a democracy and not having a free press, the leaders can make insincere noises signifying a grudging acceptance.

In Israel, you get to express your opinion–particularly concerning a life and death issue, which this certainly could be.

We here should have the same ability to talk, debate and argue the ramifications of this agreement without being subject to intimidating imprecations.

I don’t want this agreement, and I don’t want war. This agreement seems to postpone Iran getting nuclear arms–and it might. But more importantly, it makes war more, not less, likely. With nuclear weapons, Iran is unlikely to miscalculate. They understand the stakes. But with $100 billion to $150 billion more in hard currency, Iran could easily miscalculate what it can get away with using proxies and arming insurgents. And Israel or Saudi Arabia might have to respond.

For example, though Israel is already surrounded by enemies, the forces of Hamas and Hezbollah have mostly crude weapons and semi-guided rockets. The introduction and use of Iranian FAJR 7 or Shahab missiles and an attack on Ben Gurion Airport, Tel Aviv or, God help us, the nuclear facility at Dimona and there will be war.